tv The 11th Hour With Brian Williams MSNBC June 22, 2018 11:00pm-12:00am PDT
segments up online as quickly as we can. this isn't a promise, but i'm hoping within an hour or so, i will tweet them @lawrence. they will be out there. you'll be able to see them. "the 11th hour" with brian williams starts now. tonight, president trump tells republicans to stop wasting their time on immigration, but also tries to reframe the debate while his government works to reunite migrant children with their parents. plus on the legal front, new developments for former trump fixer michael cohen and somehow actor tom arnold is now involved. all that and a big decision from the supreme court on an item within an arm's reach of every one of us. "the 11th hour" on a friday night begins now. good evening once again from our nbc news headquarters here in new york. i'm steve kornacki in for brian williams. day 519 of the trump administration, and tonight there's a new report that the
department of health and human services is taking action to try to reunify families separated at the border. politico reporting that according to an internal document, the department of health and human services has created a quote unaccompanied children reunification task force, a first step toward reunifying thousands of migrant children in the agency's custody with their families. earlier today, a senior department of homeland security official confirmed to nbc that about 500 children and parents have been reunited since may. we saw one today, a mother from guatemala, who was reunited in maryland with her 7-year-old son. they had been separated at the border a month ago. as the administration attempts to deal with president trump's executive order ending the separation policy, he is also now firing back at his critics. this afternoon at the white house, the president hosted families whose children have been killed allegedly by undocumented immigrants. >> we're gathered today to hear directly from the american
victims of illegal immigration. you know, you hear the other side. you never hear this side. you don't know what's going on. these are the american citizens permanently separated from their loved ones. they're not separated for a day or two days. they are permanently separated because they were killed by criminal illegal aliens. >> and just hours before that, the president sent this out on twitter. quote, we cannot allow our country to be overrun by illegal immigrants as the democrats sell their phony stories of sadness and grief hoping it will help them in the elections. democrats have been getting out their message today on the hois floor. democrat ted lieu playing the audio recording first obtained by propublica of crying migrant children separated from their families. >> the gentleman will suspend. >> for what reason, madam
speaker? >> the gentleman is in breach of quorum. >> cite the rule, madam speaker. >> rule 17 of the house. >> there's no rule that says i can't play sounds. >> the gentleman will suspend. >> why are you trying to prevent the american people have listening to what it sounds like in a defense facility. >> -- prohibits the use of that device. >> why do you not let the american people hear what they are saying in. >> meanwhile, democratic senators martin heinrich, richard blumenthal went to texas where they tried to visit a detention facility where 250 migrant children are being held. the senators were denied access, though. >> i just think this is an administration that is completely afraid of transparency. it's afraid of the media. >> i think it's an internment site with tents. it's a prison-like internment site.
>> also today, lawmakers' efforts to deal with the immigration crisis got something of a blow from the president, who has been demanding that congress take action. earlier in the week donald trump met with house gop leadership, said he would support legislation. this morning, though, the president tweeted this. quote, republicans should stop wasting their time on immigration until after we elect more senators and kmen and women in november. dems are playing games, have no intention of doing anything to stop this decades old problem. we can pass great legislation after the red wave. that brought this response. >> i respectfully disagree. i think we should continue to work on it. >> i think what you're seeing is president trump expressing his frustration. >> we need a red wave to get more republicans who want to actually vote to secure our border. >> it's going to have an incredible chilling effect on the possibility of immigration moving forward. >> i think we'll have a very constructive bill on the floor next week.
>> let's bring in our leadoff panel for this friday night. franco or or don't yes, sir. >> katie benner. and yamiche alcindor. thanks to all of you for being with us. katie, let me start with you. we have that reporting tonight about some movement on that issue of reunifying parents with children. at least some of them. you cover the justice department, the legal end of this. it sounded like there was still plenty of confusion when that executive order was issued the other day by the president about what that was actually going to allow in terms of reunification. how clear is that now? >> absolutely. so as you say, this was another self-inflicted wound by the trump administration not thinking through clearly enough a directive before issuing it. so we saw a lot of confusion last night. there was a meeting at the white house where people argued back and forth for at least 90 minutes about what to do. things do seem to have clarified somewhat.
at the heart of this, the justice department helped draft the executive order, so they believe that their legal interpretation of this is correct, which is based around what they are calling a zero tolerance policy for people crossing the border illegally. then other components including border patrol, dhs, has pushed back and said we just don't think we can do both. we cannot keep families together and continue to do zero tolerance. today it seems like we got the components together and that they did come to somewhat more of a position where they're all on the same page queueing more closely to zero tolerance. >> it seems the president on this, especially after issuing that executive order, trying to talk about other facets of the immigration issue, maybe change the subject, may throw more balls in the air, receipt's look at those different components. franco, to you, on the political component on capitol hill, where you had the president there a couple days ago talking to republicans carrying the message of, hey, i'm with you. get some immigration reform. let's get this done.
then today going on twitter and saying, you know what, democrats are just getting in the way. we can't do anything until after november anyway. politically on capitol hill, what were the odds of some action taking place on immigration between now and the election, and what are the odds now after that tweet from donald trump? >> i mean the odds were pretty low before. it was a heavy lift from the start. that's why the moderate proposal was punted supposedly to the next week in the first place. but then when trump issued that tweet, it really let the air out of any more energy. i thought of all the members that spoke in that clip that you shared, mark sanford, i thought, of south carolina was the most honest in saying, look, it's going to be really hard to do it now. let's remember that paul ryan and other leaders at the beginning of this debate said they need trump's support. they need his backing. we don't want to bring anything to the floor unless we know for sure that this is something that
he's going to support. obviously he's not going to support. i think we're just hearing a lot of talk and trying to say this is supportive. but this does not look like it's going to work. maybe it's for the best. really for moderate republicans, this was going to be really tough to get done, and trump was walking kind of a tight rope here. he didn't want to go too hard and hurt moderate republicans, but if he didn't go hard enough, he was going to hurt his base. >> yamiche, the other piece of what donald trump was saying today on the issue of immigration had to do with that event with family members who they say had been the victim of crimes they say committed by illegal immigrants. this is something the president has talked about before as a candidate, a couple times as president. it does seem striking that he's trying to do it today in the wake of all the issues with children at the border. you have been covering trump and the reaction from some of his supporters, some of his base. how does something like what he's doing today kind of mesh with what his base is looking
for? >> well, his base is looking for exactly what the president did today. he took that message of america first and really made it something that was about whether or not you support these -- asking the question really, do you support migrant kids in cages, or do you support families whose loved ones have allegedly been killed by undocumented immigrants? he posed that question to his base. they chose -- they choose america. they choose this idea that you have to not look at these kids in cages and be appalled, that you have to instead pivot and look at these families. the fact that he continually said these are families that are permanently separated from their loved ones, making light of the fact that being separated from your child for a month or two months or even eight months in some cases, that that's not as hard as your child being gone forever. so there's this idea that he really wanted to get back to his roots because this week was really, really tough for the president. he does not step back. he does not take back his actions.
and this week had to actually say, you know what? he had to admit on paper in an executive order that this was not something that could work out, that he had to actually undo a policy that he thought was going to deter undocumented immigrants. so i think that the president was feeling a little wounded, and as a result he did this. i talked to a white house official a couple hours ago who said that the president still supports both of the bills that are in the house, but that person is saying that on background, not wanting to put their name on the record. and the president is not tweeting that out. he's not saying, hey, i still am excited about these two bills. i hope that they pass. instead he's really saying you're wasting your time. let's just make it a midterm issue. >> that's the interesting thing, yamiche. i think it was ryan costello, republican congressman from pennsylvania -- actually he's not running again. he got a tough break there in the redistricting and said, that's it. i'm not going again. he's been a little more outspoken since then maybe. his reaction to what you just said from donald trump today was he said, hey, the calculation is clear here. the president just wants to be blaming democrats rhetorically. is there a strategy that you see
between now and november that's not about policy, not about legislation, about the rhetoric of the campaign? >> i think so. i think this president wants to say if you want stronger immigration laws, if you want to actually get something done, that you need to have more republicans. the white house official today talked to me and said that republicans don't have enough of a majority. there's this idea that everyone knows that republicans have control of both the presidency, the house, and the senate. but now they're saying we don't have enough republicans to get things through and we need to get rid of some more of these democrats. i think that's really important because the president also sees that democrats were having a really tough time and are still having a really tough time getting a message together. but kids in cages really grabbed the attention of the whole nation, and even republicans who have never really criticized the president, came out and said this is wrong. paul ryan, all these other republicans on capitol hill, evangelicals that are backing
the president because of his stance on abortion and neil gorsuch on the supreme court, they said we cannot have this. so the president needs to get this narrative back. the way he wants to do that is by making a midterm issue. >> franco, what yamiche is describing does strike me when you look at the question of family separation, kids being separated at the border, parents being held for some sort of court proceeding, even among republicans, trump's base, you see it split in half there. then you see wide opposition outside of that. but then when the issue shifts back to this sort of underlying, so-called zero tolerance policy as the trump administration frames it, where, you know, it's this question of anybody crossing the border illegally, should they be held? should she be jailed awaiting some kind of trial, some kind of legal proceeding? should the families be held together in detention while that happens, there is in these polls a lot more support there. it seems the politics of this maybe get more complicated once you get away, if you get away
from the family separation issue we've talked about this week. >> no doubt. i couldn't agree more with yamiche, who is about how the trump administration is trying to kind of rewrite the narrative this week. it was a really difficult week, and, you know, earlier in the week obviously some of his base was kind of being chipped away. you know, it was just a few days ago that the administration, steve miller, the allies were saying, we're going to stick to our guns. we're going to keep doing this. you know, 24 hours after that, he's signing this executive order. why? you know, he got so much of affront from members of his own party. one of the more sensitive one was members of his loyal base. the christian, the religious community, folks like franklin graham, who stood out, who have usually been so loyal to this president, stepped out and talked about these issues and said this was not right. it was a really fascinating turn. you saw sessions going on
christian broadcast network saying, well, i didn't really mean that we wanted to separate the children and the parents. so it really was a fascinating turn of events for this administration. they backtracked completely. now trump is obviously hitting back hard, blaming illegal immigrants for a lot of issues and saying there's a whole different world of separation of u.s. citizens. so it's quite interesting. >> katie, it seems that maybe the next phase, if there is a next phase in this, could become a dispute over this question of, okay, if going forward you're not going to have this policy of holding the adults and then after, you know, 21 days releasing the kids, separating the kids from the adults, then a dispute over what do you do then where the trump side is saying, you detain the families together awaiting a court ruling. and i've seen democrats saying, kamala harris, the dnc put out a statement saying, no, no, no. you don't detain. you don't hold anyone. i think it's been reduced to
this catch and release term. from a legal standpoint, i know we've got this consent decree from a few years ago hanging over all this. but if the trump administration decided to go down that road of family detention, legally how much latitude do they have there? >> so let me unpack this in two parts. the consent decree that you mentioned, yes, the justice department has asked a judge in california to modify a consent decree temporarily. this is the decree that makes it very difficult to detain parents and children together. what they want the judge to allow is for children to allowed to be detained in i.c.e. facilities, which currently they are not. only adults are. that would keep them together. then they're hoping congress does some sort of permanent fix. but obviously it's clear that is not going to happen. so that is the consent decree portion. then the other is -- and i think is one of kamala harris' concerns, is that if we can pave a way legally for parents and children to be detained, it's indefinite.
then what do we have at the border? what do we have all over the country? we would have detention centers where whole families are held but there is no 21-day limit. but we do know the prosecutions are backed up. it's going more slowly than people would like despite the prosecutors who have been moved to the border to take care of some of these cases. i think the worry is we would be paving the way for indefinite detention of families, which is a very different issue and just as disturbing for a lot of democrats. >> when we talk about the complexity of polling, the polling showed when you give voters a choice of how to handle families in these situations, crossing the border illegally, the idea of detaining the family together was runaway the first choice of democrats and republicans. it raises the question if you introduce that word "indefinite" in front of that, how does that scramble the way people think about it? a lot of layers to this here. thank you all for joining us.
this weekend, our colleague, jacob soboroff, he's been doing some incredible reporting, and he has a dateline special on the crisis at the border called the dividing line. that's going to be sunday, 7:00 p.m. eastern, 6:00 central on your local nbc station. coming up, why this picture has everyone asking a lot of questions tonight. later, president trump says there will be a red wave. democrats, of course, have been hoping for a blue one. i'm going to head over to the big board, take a look at where things stand. is there a wave forming? what color is it? a lot to get to. "the 11th hour" back after this.
openly criticized trump's immigration policy. and now we're learning newdy tails about trump's cozy relationship with the "national enquirer." "the washington post" reporting the tabloid sent stories about trump to cohen before they went to print. then cohen seen smiling with trump enemy tom arnold, who is working on a new show focused on obtaining damaging trump tapes. arnold further fueled speculation tonight that cohen may be working against his former boss. >> i'm going to spend the weekend with michael cohen, and the president, donald trump, ivanka trump, i'm spending the weekend hanging out with michael cohen. and there's a lot going on. >> did michael cohen tell you specifically, yes or no, that he is cooperating with the authorities should charges be brought?
>> did he tell you? do you not want to answer the question? >> no. >> you don't want to answer the question? >> right. >> cohen then downplayed the claims on twitter tonight, wrying this was a chance public encounter in the hotel lobby where he asked for a selfie. not spending the weekend together. did not discuss being on his show. nor did we discuss potus. hashtag done, hashtag ridiculous. just in the last hour on this network, tom arnold was back at it and discussing cohen and his alleged cooperation in an interview with lawrence o'donnell on "the last word." >> michael cohen is cooperating on the right side of this right now. >> and the right side, does that include the fbi and the -- >> yes. >> so he's cooperating with them already? >> yes, 100%.
>> and how do you know that? he told you that? >> he didn't say those words, but i know that. >> what were the words he said? >> i know people are -- >> to indicate that? that's okay. i understand. >> um, i'm with you. you know that. >> cohen is under federal investigation in connection with $130,000 payment of hush money to porn star stormy daniels. her attorney weighed in on this network earlier today. >> perhaps this is a flare gunshot in the air for michael cohen, you know, a message to mr. trump or others that there may be things coming down the pike. there is no doubt in my mind that michael cohen is going to be indicted and face some very, very serious charges. there's no doubt in my mind that he's going to try to trade or flip on this. >> here with us tonight, mimi rocah, former assistant u.s. attorney for the southern district of new york, now a distinguished fellow in criminal justice at the pace university school of law and msnbc legal analyst.
and josh gerstein, senior white house reporter for politico. questions i didn't think i'd be asking on an 11:00 news show on msnbc a couple years ago, but let's talk about tom arnold. >> let's. >> he's hinting in an awful lot in an interview on this network earlier tonight, on cnn, hinting in that clip and other parts of that interview, his antics we played seemed erratic, the incentive he has to hype interest in this special he's got coming out seems obvious. i'm a layman legally. i'm curious watching that interview tonight, watching these interviews, what did you make of it? >> look, it's hard to know what he -- he didn't actually come out and say it, right? so even when he was asked, is he cooperating by lawrence, he said -- arnold said he's on the right side. but then when he asked about the exact words, the words were about "i'm with you." cohen saying to arnold "i'm with you," which doesn't say anything
about what he's doing with the government. but it doesn't answer the question that lawrence had asked, which is, is he cooperating with the government, right? so, you know, there's a lot of sort of -- it's good tv. there's a lot of different things that arnold has said. one thing i know for sure, and this is not the point of what he's saying. but i know for sure that cohen's new lawyer, guy petrillo, and the prosecutors and the fbi do not want tom arnold out there doing what he's doing right now, okay? because if michael cohen is headed in the direction of cooperating with them, they don't want tom arnold talking about what cohen is also telling them out on television, and they don't want cohen then, you know, on twitter saying, no, that's not true, and arnold saying, no, what you're saying isn't true. you know, it's hurting -- it could potentially hurt the credibility of what may be a very important witness if you start getting into this twitter-fest about what someone did or didn't say and what someone is or isn't doing.
cooperation is meant to be a confidential process. even if someone isn't cooperating proactively. so i know at least, you know, cohen's attorney is probably counseling cohen to not do this, especially given the attorney that he now has, guy petrillo, former prosecutor. i know him. you know, a very honorable, good lawyer, upstanding person, well thought of, well respected. he would not, i don't think, be in favor of this. so, you know, it's hard to know what to make of arnold saying all of this. i think all that said, though, cohen has a lot of incentive to cooperate. so i don't think it's beyond the realm at all that he is at least headed in that direction. cooperation right now wouldn't mean obviously that he's going in court tomorrow or anytime soon and pleading guilty. it may mean that he's already possibly -- i don't know this -- started talking, you know, with them informally or formally or it may just mean that's where he's headed. you know, that's the direction he's going in. and that makes sense because,
remember, the judge has basically adopted the special master's findings, you know, which say that almost nothing is privileged. so all of that evidence that was seized is coming in. and so, you know -- against cohen. so that evidence, and we're just starting to hear about more and more crimes that they're obviously looking at, and i'm sure there is more to come. so he's under a lot of pressure to cooperate. >> and, josh, i mean i'm just curious. where does your interpretation fall on that scale of, you know, kind of hype or something erratic on one side versus something real on the other side? where is the balance for you? >> well, i do think that what tom arnold was saying in these several interviews has to be taken with more than a grain of salt, probably with at least a full tablespoon or more. but there is this element here where you do get the sense that
michael cohen is sometimes trolling president trump, you know, that he could have taken the opportunity not to have a selfie taken with arnold, but he went ahead and did it. and in some of these comments and interactions seems kind of playful. it does seem like a degree of attention-seeking with respect to the president, like there's some kind of deep-seeded, psychological grievance or neediness there. whether that's part of a legal strategy or some other kind of psychological issue is hard to say. the last time i checked in with people close to cohen, the word was that he was not cooperating with federal prosecutors, that he was open to talking with them about it, but that those discussions had not progressed to the point that anybody could describe as actively cooperating. >> and i think there was one point in that interview tonight when arnold said something to the effect, paraphrasing here, of, hey, i'm overselling this interaction with cohen a little bit, but he's underselling it. he's very much underselling it.
so i think arnold had said something to that effect at one point. josh, related to the issue of michael cohen, then, and the legal situation he finds himself in, there were also some court filings, or there was a court filing today that shed a little bit more light on the documents the government now has in its possession. what can you tell us about that? >> it talked about the judge and the special master's decision on how many information is privileged here. what was fascinating in this order that judge wood put out was that even among the relatively small universe of information they decided was privileged, the vast majority of it seemed to have nothing to do with either president trump or the trump organization or any other clients like folks like sean hannity, for example. the stuff that was deemed privileged seems to be legal advice that michael cohen was getting from other lawyers about michael cohen's personal exposure or other legal matters and very, very little of it has to do with any clients. so the total amount that's going
to be withheld from prosecutors that could potentially be relevant to president trump is an infinitesimal fraction, probably on the order of a tenth of 1% or a hundredth of 1% of the material that's been processed so far. >> any sense on the timetable on this? all the speculation is there going to be some kind of deal, some kind of cooperation, some kind of flipping? is that we find out when we find out, or are there any clues we can kind of discern here when we get an answer to that? >> well, we find out when they want us to find out. i mean even once he goes down that road if he goes down the road of cooperation, we may not know it. now, michael cohen is unusual because he does like the attention and wants to talk. they won't want him to confirm to anyone if he is cooperating, they being the government, and his lawyer i'm sure would try to tell him not to. but i don't know if he can help himself. the truth is a sign might be -- i expect michael cohen to get
charged now that this discovery process is coming to an end. one would think the next step would be him getting charged. if for some reason charges aren't filed, that would be a sign to me that there are discussions going on. now, it doesn't have to be cooperation. they could be discussions about a plea without cooperating, right? like he hired guy petrillo. you know, hiring an alum from the office is someone who can help him navigate the office. whether you go down the cooperation road, meaning giving information in exchange for something, you know, which you get from the government -- it's called a 5k letter -- or just negotiating a plea agreement that's favorable to him so that he can, you know, try to spend less time in jail than he otherwise would if he went to trial. so he has the same options available to him that any defendant has once he's charged. and even if he's not charged, you can start that negotiation process. so if those charges aren't filed
relatively soon, that would be a sign that he's trying to negotiate something. again, i think we have to be careful about, you know, assuming we know what that something is yet. >> but if we don't hear anything, we can suspect something perhaps. mimi rocah, josh gerstein, thank you both for being with us. up next, president trump is talking about a red wave in november. do the numbers say one could be forming? going to head over to the big board and find some answers there when "the 11th hour" comes right back. i'm leaving the track behind, but i'm not standing still... and with godaddy, i've made my ideas real. ♪ ♪ i made my own way, now it's time to make yours. ♪ ♪ everything is working, working, just like it should ♪
at the marine mammal center, the environment is everything. we want to do our very best for each and every animal, and we want to operate a sustainable facility. and pg&e has been a partner helping us to achieve that. we've helped the marine mammal center go solar, install electric vehicle charging stations, and become more energy efficient. pg&e has allowed us to be the most sustainable organization we can be. any time you help a customer, it's a really good feeling. it's especially so when it's a customer that's doing such good and important work for the environment. together, we're building a better california.
all right. so the president, he had the midterms on his mind today when he went tweeting. we said he told republicans in immigration between now and the election because, he said, democrats, they're not going to do anything. we need to wait for the red wave. he said we need all these republicans to get elected. then we do something on immigration. he said a red wave is coming. of course a lot of the talk has been, hey, not so much about a red wave, but is there a blue wave building because generally in midterms, the party with the white house loses seats. the question is how bad is it? that's usually the question. trump suggesting something else. so let's see a red wave. the possibility. well, one thing trump talks about is he says republicans need 60 votes in the senate because of the filibuster. he's always reminding audiences. he did this the other night at his rally. he said we republicans, we only have 51. we really need 60. well, look, on paper here's the
thing in the senate this year. there are ten democratic seats up that are in states that donald trump won, that he carried in 2016. trump state democrats. you can do the math. you win ten of those, you win nine of those, you got your 60, you got your 61. so what kind of gains? are there actual gains that republicans are poised to get in these seats? well, guess what? in the last week we have got a deluge of polling in these trump states that are held by democrats. let's show you what we're seeing. first one is best news for republicans i think on the senate front. north dakota. a state that donald trump won by 36 points in 2016. there you go, kevin cramer, the congressman from that state, he leads heidi heitkamp, the trump state democrat, in this new poll by four points. so if that is what the election looked like, that's a republican pickup. west virginia, trump won this state by 42 points in 2016. republicans say, my god, he won it by 42. we got to be able to take out joe manchin, the democratic incumbent.
yet first poll after the republican primary, patrick morsi, republican nominee, nine points behind manchin. this name, don blankenship, he said he's going to run third party. after losing the republican primary, he may have to go to court to do that. with him or without him in this poll, manchin was up there by a high single digit margin. that one is good news for democrats. this one, very good news for democrats. we've seen other polls that are much different than this. but here's bill nelson, the democratic incumbent, leading governor rick scott by ten in florida. this is one if this is the start of a trend, that's the thing we want to see. are there going to be more polls in florida that look like this, or is the next poll going to look more like the others we've seen which have shown a much close race. you look at pennsylvania. trump won this thing by a very small margin in 2016. bob casey, the democrat is looking in very good position in pennsylvania. in montana, jon tester, democratic incumbent. this is trump by 20 in this state.
tester, high single digit lead. that would be encouraging for democrats. ohio, very encouraging for democrats. we don't have the numbers for it, but wisconsin, tammy baldwin running again. trump won by a very narrow margin. republicans haven't had their primary yet, but the polling matched up baldwin against both possible republicans, that encouraging for democrats too. basically go back to that map. remember, republicans wanted to get a bunch of these because they're trump states. what's taking shape right now in the early polling? north dakota, that as ripe a target as it looked at the start of the cycle for republicans. we don't have the new numbers but missouri is still looking like a top target. indiana is looking like a top target. not so much pennsylvania. not so much ohio. not so much wisconsin. haven't had a new one in michigan, but if these really close states from '16 are solid democratic leads now, michigan probably not likely. democrats surprisingly strong in west virginia but still republicans would like to make
ball games out of these, and florida kind of a wild card. so the possibility here for, you know, a couple republican pickups, not a wave of republican pickups, nothing like 60. maybe enough to keep the senate, but you know it's funny. you talk about midterm elections always going against the party that's in power. the republicans playing defense because they're the party in power in the white house. if hillary clinton had won in 2016, every single one of these democratic incumbents would be in danger right now. it's the nature of midterms. and the idea of republicans getting near that 60-seat mark probably would be real. now, though, with trump, trump midterm, republicans will be very happy if they could pick up, you know, two seats, one seat even i think they would take at this point. anyway, more coming up on what these numbers mean for the president and why one longtime conservative has this message for voters. vote against the gop. "the 11th hour" back after this.
i'm alex trebek, here to tell you about the colonial penn program. if you're age 50 to 85, and looking to buy life insurance on a fixed budget, remember the three p's. what are the three p's? the three p's of life insurance on a fixed budget are price, price, and price. a price you can afford, a price that can't increase, and a price that fits your budget. i'm 54. alex, what's my price? you can get coverage for $9.95 a month. i'm 65 and take medications. what's my price? also $9.95 a month. i just turned 80.
what's my price? $9.95 a month for you too. if you're age 50 to 85, call now about the #1 most popular whole life insurance plan, available through the colonial penn program. it has an affordable rate starting at $9.95 a month. no medical exam, no health questions. your acceptance is guaranteed. and this plan has a guaranteed lifetime rate lock, so your rate can never go up for any reason. so call now for free information. and you'll also get this free beneficiary planner. and it's yours just for calling. so call now. as we were just showing you, president trump started today
suggesting on twitter that republicans could be in for a red wave in november's midterms. but he's already seeing pushback from within his own party. republican congressman mark sanford, who lost his primary last week after trump endorsed his challenger at the literal last minute, told msnbc today the president's tweet will not help immigration reform and warned of november consequences. >> i think that it probably kills off the possibility of immigration moving forward, but you never say never. the longer this issue festers, i think it will have the reverse effect. rather than create a red wave, it may very well be part of what creates a blue wave. >> another prominent conservative is openly advocating for the gop's defeat this november. columnist george will left the republican party as donald trump won the nomination of the gop in 2016. he writes today in a piece titled "vote against the gop this november," quote, the family shredding policy along the southern border, the most telegenic recent example of misrule clarified something. occurring less than 140 days before elections that can
reshape congress, the policy has given independents and evidence for the principle by which they should vote. the principle the questions must be stub shangly reduced. joining me now is toluse ole run a pa. let's start on this george will column because it is a longtime trump critic, and i'm wondering if the reaction he's having to this week's events and the way he phrased it today, if it reflects changes yet to come in the republican party. more disaffection from people like george will yet to reveal itself, or if this is something at this point that's already baked in. the folks that were going to say, hey, donald trump, what he's offering, what he's selling, that's not real conservatism. that kind of argument, if they were going to be off the ship by 2016, and if they're not off by now, they're not going to get off. >> we have seen the president double down on his base, the core supporters who are going to
be with him no matter what. we have not seen him expand that base. and to win elections, to win midterms, you do need to expand that base. and when you're losing longtime conservatives like george will. we saw steve schmidt decide he's leaving the party and encouraging republicans to vote for democrats. we're hearing from mark sanford and even senators like bob corker saying that the republican leadership in congress has become sort of a cult of trump. that's a sign that the president is not adding the support that he needs to his base in order to win in the midterms, that he's really doubling down as we saw during the event day as we saw with the immigrant families with divisive policies, divisive issues that appeal to a very small minorities within his base, but do not expand the majority he's going to need to hold congress, to hold the house. that's very clear that the president's really looking to continue to double down, continue to focus on divisive
policies when people in his party would rather have him focus on the fact that this is a six-month anniversary of the tax cut bill. there was no, you know, celebration at the white house about cutting taxes, something that could appeal to the suburban voters that he's going to need this november. instead he's turning off a lot of suburban voters with his divisive rhetoric. >> i take your point, and it's clearly very base-centric and not at all what we would traditionally say, this is a president reaching out to the quote, unquote middle. at the same time i was struck when you talk about going after that base, his approval rating when you looked at inside the numbers from gallup and compare him to all modern presidents, with his own party, no president except bush a few months after 9/11 has been stronger with his own party in an approval rating at this point in his presidency than trump is right now. i do wonder if there's a possibility that that in some way makes up for maybe not completely, but makes up politically in some way for not reaching out traditionally to the middle.
that that level of intraparty support could pad what might otherwise be very, very severe losses in november. >> see, that's a good point. that's part of the reason the president was able to get elected, because he was able to bring home republicans. he was able to bring home a number of people within his party who weren't necessarily happy with the way he expresses himself or with his approach to politics, a sort of hard edged approach to taking on his opponents. but they decided to hold their nose and vote for him. what we have seen is republicans have been happy with a lot of policies he's passed whether it's tax cuts or deregulation. but he needs not only those republicans, he needs to build on that coalition by adding independents. what we've seen in some of the midterms and as you've pointed out, time and time again during some of these special elections is that suburban voters, independents are being turned off by the president. >> toluse ole run a pa, thank you for the time. appreciate it. >> thanks. coming up, what the supreme court did today that affects something almost each and every one of us has nearby at this
passes through here, and is bottled right here. at the mountain source. naturally. crystal geyser is the only major u.s spring water bottled at the mountain source. naturally. i we worked with pg&eof to save energy because wenie. wanted to help the school. they would put these signs on the door to let the teacher know you didn't cut off the light. the teachers, they would call us the energy patrol. so they would be like, here they come, turn off your lights! those three young ladies were teaching the whole school about energy efficiency. we actually saved $50,000. and that's just one school, two semesters, three girls. together, we're building a better california. how far does crystal geyser alpine spring water travel from its source to the bottle? less than a mile and a half. crystal geyser. always bottled at the mountain source.
naturally. a major decision for the supreme court court that impacts all of us who regularly use cell phones. the court says police can't use your phone to track your movement unless they get permission from a judge. pete williams has the story. >> reporter: we are a nation of nearly 400 million cell phones and many of us have more than one. today the supreme court says police must get a search warrant for our phone records to track where we have been. as we move, our phone connects to each cell tower and each connection leads to digital trails. sometimes the police can tells where we have been. police seek that data tens and thousands of times a year. in a 5-4 decision, the supreme court says it is a detailed
records of our movements, it nearly turned the phone into an ankle monitor. we expect for it to be private and the police will need a court order to get it. >> we have a solid majority of five justices who recognized these device that is we are carrying around is a threat to our privacy. they're going to hold the government to account. today's ruling says the police can still get the phone records without a search warrant. when someone is threatened with harm or if a suspect is getting away. civil liberties group hopes today's ruling of privacy -- pete williams nbc news, at the supreme court. >> thank you to pete williams and coming up, again, one guest, which scandal trump's member has another scandal on his hands tonight. "the 11th hour" back after this. [ roar ] today...
learned it was actually illegal for the time he tried to use his government office to get his wife a chick-fil-a franchise. we love chicken sandwiches. >> with great change comes, i think opposition. there are significant changes happening not only the epa but across the administration, it is needed.
>> an examination environmental protection agency chief scott pruitt's government e-mail accounts has uncovered only one message he wrote outside the epa during his first ten months in office. a number of watchdogs questioning whether he's communicating in private. scott pruitt used a private e-mails for state business. his in -- or certify he never used it for government business being reported by politico. if the epa does not respond, the environmental group can force for pruitt's e-mail account.
>> that's our broadcast and brian will be back on monday. thank you for being with us and good night from nbc headquarters in new york. tonight on "all in" -- >> like it or not, these aren't our kids. >> the chaos and the cruelty continue. >> it's a prison-like internment site. >> tonight as the president sinks his own immigration bill, new confusion about reuniting the families donald trump ripped apart, and the trump official with zero experience responsible for caring for separated children. >> it's a whole big con job. >> and is michael cohen about to flip on mr. trump? >> i'll do anything to protect mr. trump. >> why comedian tom arnold says it may have already happened. >> donald trump does not care about him, he does not care about his family, and it's over.